Congress’ big little deal

Our opinion: A small budget deal is at least a sign that compromise can happen in Congress. Now, what’s next?

Yes, the fact that any compromise on a budget deal is hailed as progress shows just how low our expectations of Congress have fallen. But fallen they have, and so even a step so modest is indeed good news. Such as it is.

What’s significant here aren’t so much the numbers as the signal — that perhaps, finally, the House Republican leadership is willing to say no to the most radical elements of its party.

It wasn’t just “no” that House Speaker John Boehner said to his most ardent right wing critics. He utterly rejected their obstructionism, which has been the prime force behind the federal government’s near paralysis the last five years.

Whether Mr. Boehner is truly fed up or just fearful of fed up voters, or perhaps a measure of both, it was encouraging to see him pull no punches in his disagreement with groups like Heritage Action and Club for Growth, outfits that were criticizing his budget deal with House Democrats before they’d even read the details. He also lambasted those who’d egged on Republicans in Congress to force a government shutdown in a vain attempt to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

“Lost all credibility,” is how Mr. Boehner described them.

Well, perhaps not all. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose top priority hasn’t been to govern but to make Barack Obama a one-term president and seems to have missed the last election, is said to be planning to vote against the deal.

The deal is hardly a blockbuster in itself. It increases planned spending by $63 billion in the short term but reduces the deficit over ten years by $23 billion. In the federal scheme of things, those are tiny numbers.

What offers hope here is that this might be a start at governing — a rejection of the politics of intransigence and a step toward more cooperation, not just on the budget but on other major issues like immigration, tax reform, and especially the economy.

Meanwhile, Republicans who rejected continuation of long term unemployment benefits in this deal need to consider the consequences for the more than 12 million Americans who are out of work — 4.8 million of them for more than the standard 26 weeks. Cutting off their checks will test the conservative theory that government benefits, not a lack of jobs, are the problem. This test will be on live subjects — people and families who will be wanting for shelter and food if this theory fails the test.

If Congress is going to toss millions of people into a still sluggish job market, then the right thing to do would be to address the eroding minimum wage. That standard, remember, was created to ensure that employers didn’t pay poverty wages. Now it can’t keep even a family of three out of poverty. A decent wage isn’t a handout. It’s simply fair play.

Maybe it’s wishful thinking that a Congress barely able to agree on even this modest budget deal could achieve something like that. But we can hope.

One Response

I think they all need to read the City Mouse (Liberals) and the Country Mouse (conservatives). Both sides need to accept that their way is not always the right way for all people. We are an extremely diverse country and both sides need to accept that diversity. We need to stop passing laws and budgets that are beneficial to just one segment of society while harming other segments.

One of my favorites are the Adirondack Park. We have the outsiders telling those who live there how to live because they screwed up their own places. So while these laws benefit the flat landers who go there for their 1 week getaways it punishes the full time residents. I say if these rules are so good for the Adirondacks then why not make them so for the entire state?